“Well”, he replied to me, “that depends on how you look at two particular things.”
“And what might those two things be?”, I asked.
“Revelation and reason. Let me put it this way”, he continued, “I’m going to need another round.” I ordered up two more espressos. He leaned forward and began:
“What the guy was actually doing was pointing out in a very clear manner that the only basis for mutual discussion had to be reason, because the revelations contradict each other. You see, he didn’t talk about the idea of revelation as a ground for discussion because there isn’t much common ground there. If there is going to be any common ground, it has to come from what everyone has in common – human reason, because he believes we are all made in the image of God.
“Reason is the only possible ground left, because no one wants to mention that if the discussion hinges on revelation, then there are a few problems. I suppose it depends on answering how you or I or anybody can know anything at all about who God is, and who God isn’t. If you say that the only way to know God, is by revelation alone, then there won’t be all that much common ground.
“Let me give you a simple example. Suppose you and I say that we both know someone named Bill. Do we assume we are referring to the same person just because we are using the same name?”
“Well”, I replied, “what if I start describing Bill to you? Suppose I tell you that Bill is so tall, and has this color of hair, and this color of eyes, and things like that? Then we could start to make some comparisons and have a discussion – maybe we are talking about the same Bill.”
“That’s a good place to start”, he said. “But where do you get those ideas about Bill? Did you figure them out on your own, by your reason, or were you told those things, by revelation, and came to believe them? And those are just a few descriptors. What if we went further, and we looked at more attributes. Suppose I say to you: yes, the man I know fits that description. Furthermore, this man is a single gentleman, he has no wife and no children. You might reply that I am mistaken; the one you are referring to definitely has a son. Oh no, I tell you; he has no son, it is impossible, either you must be referring to a different Bill, or you have mistaken information about him.”
I fingered the edge of espresso cup. “In that case, can’t we still be referring to the same person, only one of us does not have all the details, all the information? I mean, one of knows this person better than the other, but we are still talking about the same person?”
“If it were just a matter of simple things", he said, "like hair color and physical appearance, then the answer could be yes. It might just be that he has changed something about himself, some accidental quality which isn’t really a defining quality. But this is only a very limited way of talking about him. Even when we ask whether or not it is possible for him to have a son, that is still, from a human point of view, not what we would call a necessary quality.
“When it comes to God, is “having a son” a sort of add-on quality, like you or I might have a car or not have a car, live in a house or an apartment? Those things can and do change, and they don’t make us different persons. But with God, if “having a son” is not an add-on quality, but in some way is the very essence of who God is, then it is a very different matter.”
“And”, he said, “it is here that religion differs from what you call your ‘philosophy’. Religion trusts in revelation. And if my revelation differs from yours, then we have only two options. Either we have mutually exclusive claims based on faith in our revelations, or we submit both of our revelations to human reason, which we trust is mutually inclusive.”
“I’m not sure I fully buy into that”, I replied. “Couldn’t it just be part of the mystery of God that things seem to be contradictory? After all, there are some religions, like Christianity I am told, in which God is said to be divine and human, surely if the God of Christians can claim to be human and divine at the same time, then having some apparently contradictory revelations would not be difficult for God to reconcile?”
“You can be the judge of that”, he answered. “And in letting you be the judge of that, I have done exactly what he set out to do. When I say ‘You can be the judge of that’, I really mean it: I believe that the power of reason placed within you as a gift from the divine makes you equal with me. It is an appeal to common humanity.”
“But”, I said, “who am I to judge the content of a revelation? Isn’t that just, well, wrong?”
“For that question”, he laughed, “we shall have to wait. But the answer does not prevent us from enjoying an afternoon together in the cafe. That, at least, should be clear.”
Comments